This time it's Robert Wexler (D, Florida or Maryland depending on his tax situation).....

Florida congressman and Barack Obama Florida campaign chairman Robert Wexler has allegedly filed 25 amended FEC reports in the days immediately following Bill O'Reilly busting him in front of his Maryland home on camera.

As some might remember, Bill O'Reilly caught Florida Congressman Robert Wexler on tape admitting that he claimed a home owned by his in-laws as his primary residence (in Florida) while he lived in Maryland. Florida has no state income tax.

This was discovered on 7/22/08.

Wexler's opponent seems to have a very compelling argument that there is much more on Wexler needing to be revealed (see link below). Wexler's campaign allegedly submitted 25 amended FEC reports between 7/23/08 (one day after O'Reilly busted him) and 7/30/08.

The one common thread running through all of the amended reports? Any contributions shown to come from a company called Newbridge Securities were re-assigned to other companies, some of which were OUT OF BUSINESS at the time they supposedly now contributed.

If these allegations are true, the Wexler campaign could be guilty of money laundering and multiple FEC violations.

First, I don't like the right wingers going after Obama's aunt. It's the kind of thing that people have been bitching about with Joe the Plumber. We shouldn't be in the same game.

She's not part of the campaign, leave her alone.

With that said, isn't it interesting that The Messiah makes millions yet doesn't do a damn thing for his relative, although he expects the American taxpayer to foot the bill for someone who's not even a legal citizen. And if they don't, they're selfish?

Somehow that's so democrat. Like Joe Biden, donater of all of $300 last year wanting others to kick in when he doesn't. Or The Messiah, who expects the taxpayer's to take care of what he won't personally.

Don't worry Obama, no one will ever accuse you of sharing your toys with another.... it's clear you never have.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics Web site OpenSecrets.org, out the top 25 political contributors for the 2008 election cycle, nine were Wall Street banking or investment firms, including the now defunct firm Lehman Brothers. Employees at eight of those nine firms gave more money to Democratic candidates – nearly $17 million to Democratic candidates versus only $11 million to their Republican counterparts. That’s 60 percent for Democrats to only 40 percent for Republicans.

Four of the top six overall donors are Wall Street financial firms participating in part of the recently passed $850 billion bailout – Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS), Citigroup (NYSE:C), JP Morgan Chase (NYSE:JPM) and Morgan Stanley (NYSE:MS). Employees of those firms gave $10.4 million to Democrats and $6 million to Republicans or 63 percent Democrat. Employees of bank Goldman Sachs alone gave $3.6 million to Democrats and $1.3 million to Republicans, a nearly 3-to-1 ratio.

Still, the Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama criticized Republican President George W. Bush for putting Wall Street before Main Street with the blame for the crisis. “Now, this didn’t happen by accident. Our falling GDP is a direct result of eight years of the trickle down, Wall Street first/Main Street last policies that have driven our economy into a ditch,” Obama said at a speech in Sarasota, Fla., on Oct. 30.

A Connecticut man admitted he voted while visiting Ohio during the so-called “golden week” of Sept. 30 - Oct. 6.

That was the week that, thanks to a fluke of the calendar, voters could register to vote and then immediately cast their ballot.

The man asked that his ballot be pulled, and Friday the Hamilton County Elections Board said it will do so, referring the ballot for investigation.

• Poll: Voting fraud in Ohio?

It's not clear what charges he could face. His name was not released.

The remaining 670 ballots cast by Hamilton Countians that week -- and questioned by County Prosecutor Joe Deters in a voter fraud investigation -- will be processed as normal as long as the elections board can verify the addresses.

About 17 registration notices mailed out to those voters were returned as undeliverable. If the board cannot verify the address is correct, they also will be referred for investigation.

In Ohio, illegal voting is a fourth-degree felony punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 and six to 18 months in state prison. Getting caught for voter fraud in a federal election can result in five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

A couple of days ago I ran into this little gem over at a liberal blog.

Dear Red States, We’ve decided we’re leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we’re taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren’t aware, that includes Hawaii, California, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, New York, and all of the Northeastern states. After this election, we’ll be adding Colorado and New Mexico. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, especially to the people of our new country - Nuevo California.

“To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states; we get stem cell research, the best beaches, and the best ski resorts. We get the Statue of Liberty; you get Dollywood. We get Intel and Microsoft; you get WorldCom. We get Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Cal Tech, MIT and Columbia; you get Ole’ Miss. We get 85 percent of America’s venture capital and entrepreneurs; you get Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue; you get to make the red states pay their fair share. …

“With the Blue States, we will control 80 percent of the country’s fresh water, 90 percent of pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation’s fresh fruit, 97 percent of America’s quality wines (you can serve French wines at your state dinners), 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, and all the Ivy League and Seven Sister schools. We also get New England, the Great Lakes and Yosemite, thank you very much.

“In the Red States, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans and their projected health care costs, 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, 100 percent of tornadoes, 94 percent of hurricanes, 99 percent of Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bob Jones University, and Clemson.”

It's kind of cute but to quote Ronald Reagan... "Liberals know so much, they just know so much about things that aren't so".

Red State - Blue State is a over simplification of the political divide in this country. Above is the 2004 map broken down by county. As you can clearly see from the map, most of the urban areas in this country are blue. The suburban and rural areas are red.

Or let's take Chicago. How's the city where The Messiah was born working for everyone? I guess it's fine unless you're one of the 400 plus people murdered this year.

Maybe the best example is New York. Remember the New York of the 1970's and 1980's under the Ed Koch and David Dinkin's administrations? It was a flat out, bankrupt, cesspool. It took a moderate republican mayor just to make that city actually livable again.

I've been making this challenge to liberals for over two years now and none of them have the stones to get on my comment section and tell me, exactly what makes these democratic areas so wonderful to live in?

By the way, for the liberal ding dong who posted the gem above. You can't have Yosemite and Napa and actually most of the places you note in your piece. See, if you would actually look at the map you would see that these are red areas.

No, I'm sure the red areas would be more than happy for you to secede as long as you take Gary Indiana and New Orleans with you and we'll take Yellowstone thank you very much.

Oh, by the way, if you want our country to look like, say, Cleveland, Obama's your man.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Chris Dodd et al are under investigation for their Countrywide VIP loans.

The wide-ranging criminal investigation into wrongdoing at Countrywide - once the nation's largest mortgage originator - now includes serious scrutiny of a loan program that provided special mortgage deals to the well-connected and powerful, including two U.S. senators.

NBC News has learned that Robert Feinberg - a former Countrywide loan officer who handled what were known as the "VIP" mortgages - spent six hours last Thursday with a six-person team from the Justice Department. The team included prosecutors from the Public Integrity section, which handles investigations of possible public corruption.

While there may be some bright spots in this information, I think any analysis of early voting and/or polling could be skewed as a result of the following fact sets.

For instance, it appears that democrats have requested more absentee ballots in Ohio than republicans. Good for Obama right?

Except that a legion of republicans switched parties in March to vote in the democratic primary. Ole Gordon was one of them.

In fact, I wonder if the polling has taken this into account. Consider that if polling organizations look at Ohio and see 38% registered democratic and 28% registered republicans, I'm guessing that their polling sample will be reflective of those numbers. But let's say there was a 2% swing from republicans switching their registrations. Do the polling firms now look at getting a sampling of 40% democrat and 26% republican? I don't know.

During the spring, the DNC claimed they were encouraged by the party switching because it was evidence of disaffected republicans. While I'm sure there was some of this, I know of four people who switched for the exclusive purpose of voting for The Billary.

Combine that with the "undecided" voter. My gut tells me that a large portion of these voters are people who absolutely detest McCain (like myself) but the thought of voting Obama is even more sickening. I'm guessing that if you are an Obama fan, you are dying to be polled to tell them who you are supporting. If you are a McCain voter, you probably not only don't want to talk to a pollster you may just say you're undecided due to your lack of enthusiasm. But when push comes to shove, you'll hold your nose and vote McCain.

Then there's the Bradley effect. I have a different take on the Bradley effect. In general, the hypothesis is that white voters don't want to appear racist by picking the other candidate. As a result, black candidates over poll. But consider that the Bradley effect has less to do with white voters than black. Can you imagine being black, being polled and not supporting the black candidate? I'm sure that no African American wants the scourge that Clarence Thomas gets for being an"Uncle Tom".

If this holds true, I'm thinking that the "Bradley effect" will be negligible.

Finally, one last issue that comes into play. Fraudulent votes. There's little doubt that there is rampant voter fraud being committed by Obamamunists. Just yesterday, a congressional aide was fired for registering in Ohio despite being a NY resident.

How many of these are there? How many Donald Duck's have received an absentee ballot to vote for The Messiah?

Lot's of issues in play. I'm guessing we won't know until late Tuesday whether or not Obama can put on his coronation crown and robe.

Barack Obama accused Republican rival John McCain on Wednesday of stooping to low tactics by labeling the Democrat a socialist. "I don't know what's next," Obama, the presidential candidate, said at an outdoor rally in North Carolina. "By the end of the week, he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich."

No senator, if you were to give your PBJ to another, you would be a good conservative.

What makes you a communist, is when you take my PBJ, take half to give to another and keep half for yourself.

U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez personally lobbied Mayor Richard Daley to back a controversial multimillion-dollar development for a campaign contributor who had just lent the congressman $200,000 in a real estate deal, a Tribune investigation has found.

Now the congressman's unusual gesture of support is under federal scrutiny as authorities investigate how developers overcame city planners' objections to convert the West Side industrial site into a more profitable residential and commercial development.

Authorities have obtained Gutierrez's July 7, 2004, letter to Daley—written on U.S. House stationery—as part of their grand jury investigation into how zoning works inside City Hall, sources told the Tribune.

I've always been amazed at the media prone stance towards lefty politicians. After all, when socialists and communists take over country what's the first thing they do?

Stifle the media.

Down in Nicaragua, where Daniel Ortega (that would be the same Daniel Ortega who's endorsed The Messiah) they're having a small issue of persecution of journalists.

Those who opposed the dictatorship were imprisoned, forced into exile, stripped of their possessions and denied their fundamental rights. Some, like opposition leader Jorge Salazar, were murdered.

It is not by chance that Ortega's new regime was announced with the murder of journalist Carlos Guadamuz and later was installed in open confrontation with the communications media and the journalists. The persecution now targets my brother, Carlos Fernando Chamorro, because, as a journalist and with the same valor that our parents displayed, he is in the front ranks of combat against the Ortega dictatorship, defending Nicaraguans' freedoms and fundamental rights.

It is tough to realize that we are again in the same struggle, after so much sacrifice and blood spilled in two wars. The destruction of the democratic process is not the fault of the freedom-loving people, who remain defiant, but of political leaders who call themselves democrats, such as the corrupt autocrat Arnoldo Alemán. He and Ortega joined to hijack the democratic institutions and perpetuate themselves through the Power of the Pact, which understands only subjugation that sweeps away every lesser authority, a power that is absolute and centralizing.

Historic crime

Ortega mercilessly targets my brother Carlos Fernando because he knows that the freedom of expression that our people have defended at all costs is like the Holy Cross against the devil. The triumph of freedom of expression in Nicaragua is a fact that was proven against two dictatorships. Its defenders will not allow Ortega and his family to perpetuate themselves in power and will not allow journalists like my brother to lose this political battle, which is not personal but waged by all Nicaraguans.

Although it has toppled the institutions, the historic crime committed by Alemán and Ortega against democracy, progress and the hopes of the people has been unable (and will not be able) to destroy the popular devotion that Nicaragua feels toward freedom of expression. It was sealed with the blood of thousands of heroes and martyrs and is again the center of national unity in defense of Carlos Fernando, national journalism and the popular clamor that, for the third time, cries: ``Democracy, yes; dictatorship, no.''

If you listen to democrats, you'll never find one who will say it's time to get rid of it. This, despite the fact that today we have an African American presidential candidate and a female vice presidential candidate.

But ask the question, how is it possible for a black man to achieve this status without the benefit of affirmative action? And if this is possible, why do we insist on a policy that taints the accomplishments of people targeted by affirmative action?

The most you will ever get from a democrat on this issue is a Bill Clinton rhyme of mend it... don't end it.

Since the introduction of prop 209 in California, there has been little change in the enrollment of minorities in California universities. So why do we insist on a policy that undermines the success of targeted groups?

So if you go to a democratic function and you are against affirmative action. My advice to you is to keep your eye on the exits. That's where you'll be headed when you expose your views.

It's tough enough for McCain to compete against a billion dollar campaign but when he also has to campaign against all the media outlets as well, it might be too much.

From the LA Times....

John McCain's presidential campaign Tuesday accused the Los Angeles Times of "intentionally suppressing" a videotape it obtained of a 2003 banquet where then-state Sen. Barack Obama spoke of his friendship with Rashid Khalidi, a leading Palestinian scholar and activist.

The Times first reported on the videotape in an April 2008 story about Obama's ties with Palestinians and Jews as he navigated the politics of Chicago. The report included a detailed description of the tape, but the newspaper did not make the video public.

"A major news organization is intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi," said McCain campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb. " . . . The election is one week away, and it's unfortunate that the press so obviously favors Barack Obama that this campaign must publicly request that the Los Angeles Times do its job -- make information public."

The Times on Tuesday issued a statement about its decision not to post the tape.

"The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it," said the newspaper's editor, Russ Stanton. "The Times keeps its promises to sources."

Here's an idea for the Times and any other news organization. How about at least confronting The Messiah about the information on the tape and interrogating him about why he's palling around with anti Semitic Israel haters. Confront him with the fact that a tape indeed does exist. How about that?

Somehow, I'd bet if the Times received a video tape of Sarah Palin going on a $15,000 clothing bender, they'd find a way to post it.

I bet the NY Times will get to this right after they finish their reporting on Joe the Plumber's 1999 Playboy subscription.

And these guys are wondering why subscription rates are heading into the toilet.

I guess Nancy's proclamation is true if the congress refuses to investigate any impropriety like the head of the committee overseeing tax law who apparently didn't pay all of his taxes.

An attorney for House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (N.Y.) acknowledged Monday that more than six weeks after the senior Democrat announced he would hire a forensic auditor to scour his tax and financial records, he has yet to do so, saying an extensive review process has delayed any action...

Rangel is also under scrutiny by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, which voted in late September to establish an investigative subcommittee into a multitude of alleged rules violations by the senior lawmaker.

The panel’s investigation will examine Rangel’s ownership of a Dominican Republic villa — the lawmaker has admitted he failed to report rental income, the nexus of his tax troubles — as well as his use of House parking facilities for long-term vehicle storage, fundraising efforts on behalf of a City College of New York center bearing his name, and the lawmaker’s use of multiple rent-controlled apartments as his primary residence...

However, it remains unclear when the ethics panel would resume consideration of the matter if the report is not completed before that time. The committee would be required to initiate a new investigation at the start of the next Congress.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

So it's bad enough that The Messiah gets endorsements from such mentally stable people like Madonna but it also looks like he's got the world despot vote locked up.

Hamas yanked its support in June when Obama made a pro-Israel speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Reuters reported. But last week Yousef told Batchelor and Klein that Hamas would send Obama a congratulatory letter "the moment that he will win the election."

Obama has also gotten a nod of approval from Iran.

The country's parliament speaker said on Oct. 22 that Iran would prefer an Obama presidency. "We are leaning more in favor of Barack Obama because he is more flexible and rational, even though we know American policy will not change that much," Ali Larijani told Agence France-Presse.

Chosun Shinbo, a newspaper based in Japan that is a mouthpiece for the North Korean government, wrote in an editorial in June: "We will see a better relationship between the U.S. and the Korean Peninsula with Obama, who sternly criticizes Bush and who would meet the leader of Chosun without pre-conditions, than with the 'Bush clone' and scarecrow of the neocons McCain."

In February, Investors Business Daily reported that while not endorsing Obama, Colombian guerilla terrorist organization FARC's chieftain Raul Reyes has said he wants to see him in the White House. He told supporters that he met "two gringos" who said "the new president of their country will be Obama and that they are interested in your compatriots. Obama will not support "Plan Colombia" nor will he sign the TLC (Free Trade Agreement)." Plan Colombia is the U.S. program funding the war on drugs and giving military support to the Colombian government.

Obama has even garnered the praises of Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam. "You are the instruments that God is going to use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn't care anything about. That's a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking," Farrakhan said.

Fidel Castro has also jumped on the Obama bandwagon, saying Obama "without doubt is, from the social and human point, the most advanced candidate" running for the U.S. presidency, Reuters reported in May.

“Today I’m announcing my opposition to Issue 6. I continue to believe that this is simply not the right economic development strategy for our state. I strongly believe that this measure would not be in the best interests of Ohio families or our state as a whole.”

What exactly is "right economic development strategy for our state", Governor? Keno?

I'm not a big fan of these casino issues. For me, each one of these ballot initiatives have become nothing more than a creation of a real estate cartel.

None the less, I don't think this state is in the current position of picking and choosing the "right" companies for economic development strategy. The state has a horrible reputation for being anti business. In addition, the state of Ohio has little, if nothing, to offer companies looking to set up businesses for profit when other states offer so much more. What's the saying? "beggars can't be choosy".

Part of employing the "right economic development strategy for our state" is to acknowledge that all business activity is good.

But I guess for Governor Ted, the "right economic development strategy for our state" has to include high taxes, ridiculous bureaucracy, and a bad pool of potential employees from a miserable education system.

I guess we just need to sit and wait around for the good times to kick in any day now.

Now that the campaign has come down to total class warfare, let me offer this to those who want to "help the poor".

Ask yourself this question, of the 10 plus percent of the unemployed in Michigan, how many of those people are "rich"? How many of the Big Dogs in Detroit are feeling the pinch of their bad economy?

Of the seven plus percent of Ohioans currently unemployed, how many are "rich"?

See, the rich really don't have to worry about the economic policies of the Obamamunistas and the Axis of Taxes, because they will always have access to resources the poor will never have.

The only people hurt by socialism are the poor and disenfranchised.

If you're rich, you're probably well educated and mobile. You lose your job, relocate and get another. The only people left behind are the "miseducated", the undereducated and poor who have no other options.

If we have a bad economy, I won't worry about my financial situation, Gordon and Mrs. Gekko have the education and financial where with all to weather any financial storm. But we have relatives that don't. And guess what? A bad economy will hurt them much more than it will hurt us.

Here's another tid bit of information, I believe I can make a persuasive argument that the rich don't pay taxes at all .... ever. The only people who bear the brunt of tax increases are the poor. Again, the rich look at taxes like they view the cost of production. Prices increase? Pass it along to those who will absorb it, and the passes keep flowing downhill until the poor ends up with the bag. Call it economic gravity.

Conservatives get a bum rap for their alleged lack of compassion for the poor. But in reality, they just get it. They understand that bad government policies will always hurt the poor more than themselves.

Once again, I'll point out that democrats have done an excellent job of making their constituents poor and have turned their misery into a cottage industry of job protection. Just look at Detroit, you'd think that somewhere a bulb would go off in someone's head "Gosh we keep voting for democrats in this city and it's still a dump. Maybe we should elect a republican for a change".

Or if you are a Californian, maybe the bulb goes off "Wow, all these businesses and rich people are moving to Nevada, maybe we should emulate their policies".

All of our states and cities are beautiful microcosims of how democratic policies impact the poor. So you want to vote for the Axis of Taxes, fine. Just look at what they've done to the city of Chicago and you can have that for the US. My guess? The rich are still doing quite well. The poor? Well, the one's who haven't been gunned down yet are still poor.

City Journal on the real election that occurs when governments become liberal; the flight of people and money.

Several key economic indicators point to grim news for the Golden State in the aftermath of the Wall Street meltdown. The state’s unemployment rate has jumped to 7.7 percent, its highest rate in 12 years and the third-worst in the United States. In Riverside County, 40 percent of homes sold in the past year are in foreclosure. Unfortunately, California’s government doesn’t seem interested in solving the state’s economic problems.

California continues to be burdened with high taxes, punitive regulations, huge wealth-transfer programs, out-of-control spending, and lawsuit abuse. And there’s no end in sight to the state’s fiscal madness. The “balanced budget” signed only a few weeks ago by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger already runs a deficit of as much as $5.5 billion. Last week, to cover state expenditures for the rest of the fiscal year, the state sold $5 billion in short-term notes. Schwarzenegger bought $100,000 worth himself.

Analysts already project that next fiscal year’s budget will be billions in the red. State spending has increased at a faster rate under Schwarzenegger than under his predecessor, Gray Davis. Every year, California puts taxpayers on the hook for yet more spending without any reform of the government’s boneheaded economic policies. It’s not surprising, then, that California ranks fourth-to-last in the Pacific Research Institute’s 2008 U.S. Economic Freedom Index, published in association with Forbes. The Index measures how friendly or unfriendly each state’s government policies are toward free enterprise and consumer choice. Its rankings derive from a comprehensive evaluation of fiscal, judicial, and regulatory indicators such as tax rates, state spending, occupational licensing, environmental rules, income redistribution, tort reform, and prevailing-wage laws.

When he arrived in Sacramento, Schwarzenegger promised to end government overreach. He pledged to “blow up” boxes in the state’s organizational chart, “tear up the credit card” for state legislators, and curtail taxes. Thus far, though, any “Schwarzenegger effect” on state governance has been difficult to discern. Since 2004—Schwarzenegger’s first full year in office—California’s economic-freedom ranking in the PRI index improved only two places, from an abysmal 49 to 47. And $5 billion of new debt will do nothing to bolster the Governator’s self-proclaimed reputation as a fiscal hawk.

By contrast, Nevada, California’s neighbor to the east, boasts a much more favorable economic environment. Nevada ranked sixth among the states in economic freedom, an improvement from 2004, when it placed twelfth. But the model of economic freedom among the states is slightly further east—South Dakota. The Mount Rushmore State imposes no corporate-income tax, no personal-income tax, no personal-property tax, no business-inventory tax, and no inheritance tax. States in the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains tend to be the most economically free. States in the Northeast tend to be the least free. (New York has ranked dead last since 1999.)

But it's alright California, if the Axis of Taxes take over the country, the rest of the US will be just as miserable as you are.

If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.

That isn't Sen. Obama's fault: His job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media's fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.

Why, for example to quote the lawyer for Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., haven't we seen an interview with Sen. Obama's grad school drug dealer -- when we know all about Mrs. McCain's addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview? All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize? And why are Sen. Biden's endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional media?

The absolute nadir (though I hate to commit to that, as we still have two weeks before the election) came with Joe the Plumber.

Middle America, even when they didn't agree with Joe, looked on in horror as the press took apart the private life of an average person who had the temerity to ask a tough question of a presidential candidate. So much for the standing up for the little man. So much for speaking truth to power. So much for comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable, and all of those other catchphrases we journalists used to believe we lived by.

I learned a long time ago that when people or institutions begin to behave in a matter that seems to be entirely against their own interests, it's because we don't understand what their motives really are. It would seem that by so exposing their biases and betting everything on one candidate over another, the traditional media is trying to commit suicide -- especially when, given our currently volatile world and economy, the chances of a successful Obama presidency, indeed any presidency, is probably less than 50/50.

Some point to a "Bradley effect" suggesting that voters are hiding their true feelings from pollsters because of Obama's race, while others say the Bradley effect either never existed or no longer exists. People who think there is a Bradley effect believe that the substantial majority of undecideds are likely to vote for McCain, enabling him to close some of the gap.

McCain should win a larger share of undecided voters than Obama, but it has little to do with race.

With Obama outspending McCain by upwards of 4 to 1, getting enormous traction with newspaper editorial boards, generating the enthusiasm to bring out crowds measured in the tens of thousands, and with Palin treated as more of a punch line than a candidate by the press--it seems likely that if voters are not ready to tell a pollster that they are with Obama, they are unlikely to get there.

But the phenomenon of undecided voters' breaking for McCain need not be called the "Bradley effect." Call it the "Bloomberg effect"--where after $100 million of spending, his mayoral challenger was able to capture essentially all of the 10 point undecided vote. Or call it the "Clinton effect"--where almost all the undecided vote swung away from the popular incumbent and went to Bob Dole. Or call it the "Reagan effect" where even during the Republican 1980 primaries, voters were apparently reluctant to say they were going to vote for the "elderly washed up actor" and he got the preponderance of the undecided vote.

They all amount to essentially the same pattern. Call it "the Social Effect." Where there is a perception that there is a "socially acceptable" choice, respondents who do not articulate it, are likely not to agree with it. Are they lying? Or just genuinely torn about taking that route or another? I am not going to psychoanalyze what is going on in their heads, but in the end, the pattern tends to be that those undecided voters vote against that "socially acceptable" choice.

I would add a couple of things to his theory. Let's face it, outside of Reagan, republicans have not exactly had some of the most electrifying nominees for, say, the past 40 years.

With that said, let's take McCain in 2008. Most die hard republicans hate McCain because, well, he's a democrat. I wouldn't be surprised if a number of republicans, when polled, said they are undecided waiting to see McCain's next move and/or to show their disapproval of his past sins.

As a result, there's bound to be a flirtation with polling for another candidate or as "undecided". But when push comes to shove and the race gets serious, people start to migrate to the serious candidate; in this case McCain.

On the flip side, democrats have a bad case of Bush Derangement Syndrome. They have absolutely no indecision about the candidate who is not Bush and the polling reflects that.

I believe it's why you see democrats always tracking big in the summer and republicans always closing well.

I could be wrong but the fact that there hasn't been a democrat get 51% of the vote since LBJ in 1964 tells me I'm on the right track.

Sunday, October 26, 2008

So the Obama campaign pulls interviews from reporters who finally ask the tough questions.

Obama himself hasn't given a press conference but subjects himself to the hardball questions of one Mario Lopez of Extra....

From Jake Tapper

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said that as president he would hold regular press conferences and "not just call on my four favorite reporters."

But the Democratic presidential nominee hasn't held a full press conference -- submitting himself to more than a handful of questions from his whole press corps -- in more than a month, since Sept. 24, 2008, in Clearwater, Fla.

The candidate often bemoans the media asking silly and superficial questions. The media isn't focused on the important issues facing the nation, he complains.

On Saturday in Nevada, Obama sat for an exclusive interview with Mario Lopez, the actor who played "A.C. Slater" on "Saved by the Bell," to air on the TV show "EXTRA!"

Probably nothing speaks to the differences between McCain and Obama better than this passage...

McCain believes in protecting and defending America as it is. Obama tells the world he is ashamed of America and wants to change it into something else. McCain stands for American exceptionalism, the belief that American values are superior to tyrannies. Obama stands for the expiation of America’s original sin in oppressing black people, the third world and the poor.

So how will the liberal policies of the Axis of Taxes (Obama, Pelosi, Reid) impact the US.....

The Obama worldview accepts and condones Bill Ayers, ACORN, Rashid Khalidi, Jeremiah Wright, and Raila Odinga, to mention only a few out of the menagerie that Obama has presented us. (Isn't strange how liberal leaders always seem to be leading around a carnival sideshow? Think of FDR's crew -= Howe, Hopkins, White, Tugwell, Stettinius, Hiss, Wallace, to mention only a few. Then move onto the Carter clan. Then Bill Clinton's admiration society. And we're supposed to disdain Sarah Plain?) When you pull that lever, you're also pulling it for them -- there's no way to deny it, the entanglement is simply too great.

And you're pulling it for something else as well.Over the past fifty years, something on the order of a half-million Americans -- that is to say 500,000 of our friends and neighbors -- have been killed by liberal policies. This is not hyperbole, this is not exaggeration; it is a cold statement of fact. By my own calculations, up to 260,000 people died prematurely due to the criminal justice "reform" of the 50s and 60s. Studies have shown that up to 121,000 died thanks to the CAFE standards mandating gasoline miles-per-gallon for cars, and as of last year, trucks as well. Several thousand children have been killed after falling into the hands of various state child "protective" agencies. Thousands have fallen victim to assorted environmental regulations. And we could go on to FDA drug regulations, AIDS policy, immigration policy to the point of delirium. Throwing in DDT and various foreign policy fiascos raises the numbers by several orders of magnitude. We'll put abortion aside for the moment.